From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LpknZ-0003iX-Ow
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:55:13 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LpknV-0003gs-18
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:55:13 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33936 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LpknU-0003go-Qw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:55:08 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:54555)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1LpknU-0001pY-7v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:55:08 -0400
Message-ID: <49D622F2.705@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:53:38 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Introduce module API to QEMU
References: <1238724755-15929-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<200904031235.33157.paul@codesourcery.com>	<49D607A3.7040907@codemonkey.ws>	<200904031409.32792.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<49D61924.3080803@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <49D61924.3080803@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, this raises annother issue - we've got to be extremely careful 
>> about ordering. It's not inconcievable that the PCI support code 
>> would have constructors (e.g. to register a PCI bus type).
>>   
>
> Looks like constructor/destructor has explicit support for ordering.  
> Neat.

I'd avoid it.  Have the constructor do a *pci_module_table++ = blah and 
iterate through that later.

I prefer to have the code explicit somewhere rather than gobs of 
unportable magic.  Use it where you have to, but not elsewhere.


-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.